Strict compliance with incentive scheme conditions barred writ interference where alleged technical glitches were unsupported by evidence.

A writ court will not rewrite or relax the terms of a Government incentive scheme to grant a benefit dependent on strict compliance with its filing conditions. The petitioner's claim under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010 was rejected for failure to upload the application online within the prescribed time, and the alleged technical glitches were treated as disputed questions of fact unsupported by evidence and unsuitable for determination under Article 226. No legal infirmity, arbitrariness, breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, perversity, or discrimination was shown, so interference with the rejection was declined and the incentive claim was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for incentive under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010 for failure to upload the application online within the prescribed time could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction; and whether the petitioner established any legal infirmity, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, or discrimination in the impugned rejection.

Analysis: The claim for incentive was governed by the conditions of the Government scheme, including the requirement of filing the application in the prescribed manner and within the stipulated time. The petitioner relied on alleged technical glitches in the online system, but this factual assertion was unsupported by material evidence and involved questions of fact not suitable for determination under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court also noted that the benefit arose from a scheme with binding terms and conditions, not from a statute, and that the writ court cannot modify or waive those conditions to suit an applicant. No breach of law, lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, perversity, or discriminatory treatment was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection order was not entertained, and the petitioner was not held entitled to the incentive claim.

Final Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was declined because the dispute turned on factual non-compliance with the scheme conditions and no legally sustainable ground for setting aside the rejection was established.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not rewrite or relax the terms of a Government incentive scheme, nor decide disputed questions of fact unsupported by evidence, in order to grant a benefit that depends upon strict compliance with the scheme conditions.

---